alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 1, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00526-CR

MISHA ALONDRA CRIDLAND AKA MISHA ALONDRA LABRY, 

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11CR3204

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of manslaughter. On May 7, 2013, 

the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for three years in the Institutional 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in accordance with the jury’s 

assessment of punishment. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial and notice 

of appeal. Appellant’s brief in this appeal was not filed, however.
On March 4, 2014, this court ordered a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

counsel had not filed a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b). On March 17, 2014, the 

trial court conducted the hearing, and the record of the hearing was filed in this 

court the same day.

Appellant and her counsel appeared at the hearing. Appellant informed the 

court that she wants to dismiss her appeal so that she can complete her sentence 

and be released from prison. She asked to be returned to prison as quickly as 

possible. Appellant confirmed to the court that her counsel had discussed the 

ramifications of dismissing her appeal with her and she understood the advantages 

and disadvantages. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found appellant 

no longer desires to prosecute her appeal and wishes to dismiss the appeal.

A supplemental clerk’s record was filed March 21, 2014, containing 

appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal, personally signed by appellant, filed in 

the court below. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). In addition, the supplemental record 

contains the trial court’s recommendation that the appeal be dismissed on 

appellant’s motion. 

On the basis of those findings, this court has construed appellant’s motion to 

dismiss her appeal filed in the trial court as if the motion were filed in this court. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 2. We grant the motion.

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of McCally, Busby, and Donovan.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

2
# Emergency Fund Drawdown to Support Assistance to Conflict Victims in Iraq, Lebanon, and Sri Lanka

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 2 and 4(a)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the “Act”), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601 and 2603) and section 301 of title 3, United States Code: 

 (1) I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act, in an amount not to exceed $24 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund, for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations, and payment of administrative expenses of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to: humanitarian needs resulting from conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, and Sri Lanka.

 (2) I hereby assign to you the functions of the President in relation to this memorandum under section 2(d) of the Act, and of establishing terms and conditions under section 2(c)(1) of the Act, and you my further assign such functions to any of your subordinates.

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 07-4617

Billing code 4710-10
###### Editorial Note on [Part 572](/current/title-49/part-572?toc=1)

#### Editorial Notes:

1. For compliance provisions relating to a vehicle's conformance with the performance requirements of Standard No. 208 ([§ 571.208](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-571.208)) relating to the part 572 test dummy, see the “Effective Date Note” at subpart E of this part.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 572 appear at [69 FR 18803](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/69-FR-18803), Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 572.161 General description.

(a) The Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Weighted Child Test Dummy is defined by drawings and specifications containing the following materials:

(1) “Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart S, Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Weighted Crash Test Dummy (H-III6CW),” dated June 2009 (incorporated by reference, see [§ 572.160](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-572.160));

(2) The head, neck, arm, and leg assemblies specified in [49 CFR 572 subpart N](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/part-572/subpart-N); and

(3) “Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, And Inspection (PADI) of the Part 572 Subpart S, Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Weighted Crash Test Dummy (H-III6CW), revised June 2009” (incorporated by reference, *see* [§ 572.160](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-572.160)).

Table A

| Component assembly1 | Drawing No. |
| --- | --- |
| Complete assembly | 167-0000. |
| Upper torso assembly | 167-2000. |
| Spine box weight | 167-2020 Rev. A. |
| Lower torso assembly | 167-3000. |
| Lumbar weight base | 167-3010 Rev. A. |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 Head, neck, arm, and leg assemblies are as specified in [49 CFR 572 subpart N](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/part-572/subpart-N). | |

(b) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner such that except for contacts existing under static conditions, there is no contact between metallic elements throughout the range of motion or under simulated crash impact conditions.

(c) The structural properties of the dummy are such that the dummy must conform to Subpart S in every respect and Subpart N as applicable, before use in any test similar to those specified in Standard 208, “Occupant Crash Protection” ([49 CFR 571.208](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-571.208)), and Standard 213, “Child Restraint Systems” ([49 CFR 571.213](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-571.213)).

[[69 FR 42602](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/69-FR-42602), July 16, 2004, as amended at [70 FR 77338](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/70-FR-77338), Dec. 30, 2005; [75 FR 76646](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/75-FR-76646), Dec. 9, 2010]
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fisher Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q/A), I William W. Krippaehne Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 14, 2003



/s/ William W. Krippaehne Jr.William W. Krippaehne Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer
-----Original Message-----

From: Ralph Wilson [mailto:ralphwilson1954@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 1:50 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Cc: Ralph Wilson

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

Honorable Thomas Perez

Secretary of the United States Department of Labor:

Dear Secretary Perez:

I am concerned that the proposed Department of Labor rule dealing with fiduciary duties of investment 

advisors may also have the effect of eliminating my ability to sell cover call stock options on stocks I own 

in my self directed retirement accounts. It is my earnest request that the proposed regulation be revised 

so that I will continue to be able to sell cover call stock options in my self directed retirement accounts. 

Please contact me with any questions. Thanks

Very truly yours,

Ralph M. Wilson

6405 Keith Springs Circle

Louisville, KY. 40207

Tele. 502/608/7823

Ralphwilson1954@gmail.com

Sent from my iPad
#### § 553.29 Adoption of final rules.

Final rules are prepared by representatives of the office concerned and the Office of the Chief Counsel. The rule is then submitted to the Administrator for its consideration. If the Administrator adopts the rule, it is published in the Federal Register, unless all persons subject to it are named and are personally served with a copy of it.
1210-AB32-2-1193.html[7/24/2015 7:32:39 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvr-i0it

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1687

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Dale Blumthal

General Comment

In the lasting words of Ben Franklin, "Mind Your Business".

Wait! You're MY government & don't have a business, but still want a piece of the pie. My pie!

Now you're wanting to "regulate" my retirement account. Anyone who believes that will help with protecting and

 growing their funds deserves to have the "government" control their money as well as their water, carbon foot

 print and everything else they do. As for me... "Mind Your Business". And quit growing it at our expense!
# Night Time Flight Policy The below policies are in addition to FAA 333 Exemption and COA requirements, with the exception of flying at night. 1. All flights will occur in FAA Class G airspace at no more than 150 feet AGL and no further than 100ft horizontal distance fro m t he launch location and pilot in control. 2. The flight path will be more vertical in nature (straight up and down), supporting single location panoramic photography. 3. The aircraft will only be operated over a property that has been preauthorized by properties manager.

( ex: homeowner or city manager ) 4. Community Police Department and City Manager will be notified of flight prior to its occurrence. 5. Launch and landing safe zone perimeter will be established with lighted “no entry” signs. 6. All operations will utilize a PIC and VO with the PIC and VO able to communicate verbally at all times. 7. All operations will occur at VLOS from the PIC and VO. 8. The sUAS will not be flown faster than 10mph or as limited by FAA regulations. 9. The PIC and VO will have a pre
-flight meeting at the site of the operation just prior to the flight to assess weather, area of opera tion, topography, flight time, route, hazard mitigation and overall operational and safety parameters. Also during this meeting, th e p reflight aircraft checklist (see Appendix B) will be implemented. 10. PIC is responsible for maintaining an established safe emergency landing plan if at any time during the operation conditions beco me unfavorable due to unforeseen hazards, safety concerns, or weather. 11. Prior to every flight, a highly visible lighted launch banner will be placed at the site of the ground station to allow an outside observer to determine the location of the UAS’s origin and command point.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before STEPHENS, DEERWESTER , and COGLEY Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v.
David W. MARTINEZ Machinist’s Mate (Nuclear) Second Class (E

- 5), U.S. Navy Appellant

No. 202000212

Decided: 31 March 2021
Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine C orps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge: Kimberly Kelly (arraignment) Ann K. Minami (trial)
Sentence adjudged 28 May 2020 by a genera l court

- martial convened at Naval Base Kitsap, Washington , consisting of a military judge sitti ng alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 16 months, and a bad

- conduct discharge

. For Appellant: Major Brian L. Farrell, USMCR
For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.United States v. Martinez , NMCCA No. 202000212 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________

PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in l aw and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant’s substantial rights occurred. Uniform Code of Military Justice arts. 59, 66, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
# Update on withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan August 10, 2021

/ Published Aug. 10, 2021
TAMPA, Fla., 
August 10, 2021Release Number 20210810-03FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEUpdate on withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan August 10, 2021TAMPA, Fla. - U.S. Central Command provides the following update on the orderly and responsible withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, as of 10 a.m. on August 9, 2021.Since the President's decision, the DoD has retrograded the equivalent of approximately 984 C-17 loads of material out of Afghanistan and have turned nearly 17,074 pieces of equipment to the Defense Logistics Agency for disposition. The 17,074 pieces of equipment comprise almost entirely federal excess personal property. Most of this equipment is not defensive articles or considered to be major equipment.Also, the U.S. has officially handed over seven facilities to the Afghan Ministry of Defense.The withdrawal process continues; U.S. Central Command estimates that we have completed more than 95% of the entire withdrawal process.-30-
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 129 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                           May 2, 2001.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Resources: Mr. George Miller of California to rank immediately 
after Mr. Rahall of West Virginia.
    Committee on Science: Mr. Honda of California.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of P.M. & E.M., Children

Appellate case number: 01-22-00753-CV

Trial court case number: 2021-01374J

Trial court: 313th District Court of Harris County

On November 23, 2022, Appellant M.M. filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Appellate Brief, requesting an extension until December 13, 2022 to file her brief. 

Also on November 23, 2022, Appellant J.S.M.R. a/k/a J.M. filed an Unopposed First Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief, requesting an extension until December 9, 2022 to 

file his brief. Both briefs were due November 23, 2022.

We grant both motions. Both briefs are due December 13, 2022.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy

Acting individually 

Date: December 1, 2022
Merrimack,

Dec., 1899.

#### Stevens *v.*Hood, *Adm'r.*

If the principal on a probate bond die insolvent, a creditor is under no obligation to present his claim to a commissioner upon the estate, but may look to the surety for the whole amount.

Petition, for leave to appeal from a probate decree made in 1898, finding a balance in the hands of Henry J. Crippen, upon the settlement of Ms account as administrator with the will annexed of the estate of George W. Lawrence. The plaintiff was a surety on Crippen’s bond. Crippen died in 1898. His estate was settled in the insolvent course, the report of the commissioner being accepted in 1895. The claim of the Lawrence estate was not presented to the commissioner.

The court found that the plaintiff was prevented by accident, mistake, or misfortune from claiming the appeal; but that the petition should be dismissed unless the failure to present the Lawrence claim to the commissioner on Crippen’s estate should modify the decree mentioned in the petition. It was ordered that the petition be dismissed, and the plaintiff excepted.

*Leach & Stevens,*for the plaintiff.

*Sargent*& *Niles,*for the defendant.

Peaslee, J.

It is found that justice does not require the granting of this petition, unless the failure to present the Lawrence claims to the commissioner upon the estate of the adminis*178trator who was liable therefor is a bar to a suit against his bondsmen. Such failure is not a defence. “ If the principal die, and his estate be administered in the insolvent course, the creditor is under no obligation to present his claim to the commissioner and procure what he may from that estate. He has a right, in such a case, to look to the surety for the whole amount.” *Sibley*v. McAllaster, 8 N. H. 389, 390; *Morrison*v. Bank, 65 N. H. 253, 280. The petition was rightly dismissed. *Holton*v. *Olcott,*58 N. H. 598.

*Exception overruled.*

Young, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
-----Original Message-----

From: Francis LeBlanc [mailto:frank.leblanc@icloud.com] 

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 3:27 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: DOL proposal

Prevent this from happening , don't hurt the middle class . Frank

Sent from my iPhone
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Alfacell  Corporation Balance Sheet as of October 31, 1997 and the Statements of
Operations  for the three months ended  October 31, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   JUL-31-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                                        OCT-31-1997  
<CASH>                                                4,927,012  
<SECURITIES>                                                  0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 0  
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0  
<INVENTORY>                                                   0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      5,120,566  
<PP&E>                                                1,106,432  
<DEPRECIATION>                                          764,832  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        5,462,166  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 1,288,329  
<BONDS>                                                       0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0  
<PREFERRED>                                                   0  
<COMMON>                                                 14,848  
<OTHER-SE>                                            4,145,298  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          5,462,166  
<SALES>                                                       0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         85,026  
<CGS>                                                         0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          1,523,096 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        20,348 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (1,458,418) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (1,458,418) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0 
<CHANGES>                                                      0 
<NET-INCOME>                                          (1,458,418) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              (0.10) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (0.10) 
                                                     
                                               

</TABLE>
From: Dave Gerow [mailto:rcdgerow@hawaiian.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 4:17 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

Sirs,

 

I think it is a bad idea to convert IRAs to government annuities. I believe the trust 

in government plans is at historical lows after they (you) lost all of the Social 

Security funds. Most feel the money will be lost or diverted to war funding or 

other discretionary spending. 

 

Dave Gerow

Kilauea Hawaii
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18

- 0423 Filed February 6, 2019

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MAJA LIANA CLAYTON AND SCOTT ELLIOTT CLAYTON Upon the Petition of MAJA LIANA CLAYTON , Petitioner

- Appell ee , And Concerning SCOTT ELLIOTT CLAYTON , Respondent

- Appell ant

.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Joel D. Yates , Judge.

Respondent appeals from an order denying his petiti on for modification

. AFFIRMED.

Christopher A. Clausen of Clausen Law Office , Ames , for appellant. Reyne L. See of Peglow, O'Hare & See, P

. L

. C

. , Marshalltown , for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, C .J. , and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.2

McDONALD , Judge

. Scott Clayton filed a petition to modify his child support obligation, seeking to reduce the amount of his child support obligation. Maja Clayton, his former spouse, filed a counterclaim, seeking to increase Scott’s child s upport obligation. The district court denied Scott’s petition and granted Maja’s counterclaim. In so doing, the district court made explicit credibility findings that Scott’s testimony and evidence regarding his income was not credible. In contrast, the district court found Maja’s testimony and evidence credible. Scott timely filed this appeal. On de novo review, see In re Marriage of Robbins , 5 10 N.W.2d 844, 844 (Iowa 1994), we affirm the judgment of the district court. The more credible evidence, i ncluding the parties’ testimony, expert testimony, tax returns, and other financial reco rds, supports the district court’s findings regarding Scott and Maja’s respective income s

. See In re Marriage of Knickerbocker , 601 N.W.2d 48, 51 (Iowa 1999) ( “In calc ulating child support, the first step is to determine the parents’ current monthly net income from the mos t reliable evidence presented.”); Hillman v. Cannon , No. 11

- 0367 , 2011 WL 6670657, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec

. 21, 2011) (discussing evidence relevant t o establishing a partnership); I n re Marriage of Will , 602 N.W.2d 202, 204 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (explaining that “ completed federal and/or state income tax returns are the best evidence of income and tax liability ” ). We have considered each of the parties’ arguments whether or not set forth explicitly herein. We affirm the judgment of the district court without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a),(d),(e). We decline Maja’s request for appellate attorney fees. See Iowa Code §598.36 (2017) (allowing for an award of fees)

. AFFIRMED.